Old email addresses, thousands of credit card numbers, love letters, and even pornography: these are just some of the data that researchers have found left behind on devices for sale on the secondhand market.
These results are concerning for the National Association for Information Destruction (NAID), the international trade association for the secure information destruction industry. NAID&rsquo;s mission is to help companies meet regulatory standards for data erasure set by the Department of Defense and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. CEO Bob Johnson told Quartz, that private data can be successfully removed from old devices but many resellers just don&rsquo;t take the necessary precautions to delete it. E-waste that is not stripped of sensitive information can be an easy target for identity theft.
In a 2017 survey, one of the largest of its kind in recent years, the association looked at 258 mobile devices, tablets and computer drives and used only the most basic measures to try to extract data (pdf). They found that 40% of devices resold in &ldquo;regular commerce channels&rdquo; (think Amazon, eBay, and secondhand stores) contained personally identifiable information like tax details, usernames, passwords, company and personal data.
These findings have been replicated over and over in the last fourteen years by various researchers. It&rsquo;s not just individuals who are lax about removing data, companies around the world are at fault as well. In a 2007 study researchers in Canada obtained 60 secondhand drives that had previously belonged to health care facilities. They were able to recover personal information from 65% of the drives. The data included, in the words of the researchers, &ldquo;very sensitive mental health information on a large number of people.&rdquo;
Think of all the data.A 2006 study of 200 hard drives obtained in the UK by the British Telecommunication&rsquo;s Security Research Center and Edith Cowan, 20% contained enough information for individuals to be identified, 15% contained information of a &ldquo;personal nature&rdquo; and 10% contained financial information on the organization or individual from which they had originated. One hard drive still contained data about the plans for a classified missile system designed and built by weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
Even as far back as 2003, two MIT graduate students purchased 150 previously-owned hard drives from secondhand markets to see if there was still personally identifying information on them. Of the 150 hard drives, only 9 percent (pdf) had been properly cleared of their previous owners&rsquo; data. From the remaining drives the researchers were able to use computer forensic techniques to find old email addresses, credit card numbers, fax templates, love letters, and porn.
Johnson says, there are some cases where it might make more sense to destroy rather than resell old drives and devices, because it would require extreme effort to even attempt to retrieve data from the hard drive.
Meanwhile, there are more than 1200 U.S. companies with NAID membership who follow regulations for data erasure. So if you have sensitive information on an old hard drive or device, it may be worth your while to get it in the hands of a company that follows the federal standards for deleting data before reselling it.
According to Johnson, this simple act could have helped all of the consumers whose private data lives on in secondhand remnants: &ldquo;Had they sent it to a qualified company to sanitize it, and that company knew what they were doing, you would not be able to get data off that drive. Even the NSA would not be able to get data off that drive.&rdquo;

2017-12-17

EDIT: Finally finished, and this is full of some *REALLY great mental models* that feel really useful for thinking about facilitation processes and how groups interact. I feel so strongly that I've tried to distill the whole thing down to a summary for quick skimming.

> Humans universally make Us/Them dichotomies along lines of race, ethnicity, gender, language group, religion, age, socioeconomic status, and so on... We do so with remarkable speed and neurobiological efficiency.
> ...
> But crucially, there is room for optimism. Much of that is grounded in something definedly human, which is that we all carry multiple Us/Them divisions in our heads. A Them in one case can be an Us in another, and it can only take an instant for that identity to flip.
> ...
> Important work by Susan Fiske of Princeton University explores the taxonomies of Thems we carry in our heads. She finds that *we tend to categorize Thems along two axes: “warmth”* (is the individual or group a friend or foe, benevolent or malevolent?) and *“competence”* (how effectively can the individual or group carry out their intentions?).
>
> The axes are independent... These two axes produce a matrix with four corners. We rate ourselves as high in both warmth and competence (H/H), naturally.
> ...
> Low warmth/high competence (L/H) is how people in the developing world tend to view the Europeans who colonized them... It’s the hostile stereotype ... of the rich by the poor most everywhere -- they’re cold, greedy, clannish but, dang, go to one who is a doctor if you’re seriously sick.

> *Each extreme tends to evoke consistent feelings. For H/H (i.e., Us), there’s pride. L/H—envy and resentment. H/L—pity. L/L—disgust.*
> ...
> What fascinates me is *when someone’s categorization changes.* Most straightforward are shifts from high-warmth/high-competence (H/H) status:
> - H/H to H/L: A parent declining into dementia, evoking poignant protectiveness.
> ...
> Most interesting to me is L/H to L/L, which invokes gleeful gloating, helping to explain why persecution of L/H groups usually involves degrading and humiliating them to L/L status.
> ...
> We also recognize that other individuals belong to multiple categories, and *we shift which category we consider most relevant.*
> ...
> Important research by Mary Wheeler along with Fiske showed how categorization is shifted, studying *other-race*/amygdala activation. ...a vegetable was displayed before each face; subjects judged whether the person liked that vegetable. And the amygdala didn’t respond to other-race faces.
>
> Why? You look at the Them, thinking about what food she’d like. You picture her shopping, or ordering a meal in a restaurant. Best case scenario, you decide you and she share some vegetable preference—a smidgen of Us-ness. Worst case, you decide you two differ, a relatively benign Them—history is not stained with blood spilled by animosities between partisans for broccoli versus cauliflower. Most importantly, as you imagine her sitting at dinner, enjoying that food, *you are thinking of her as an individual, the surest way to weaken automatic categorization of someone as a Them.*
> ...
> *Rapid recategorizations* can occur in the most brutal, unlikely, and intensely poignant circumstances:
> - In the Battle of Gettysburg, Confederate general Lewis Armistead was mortally wounded. As he lay on the battlefield, he gave a secret Masonic sign, hoping it would be recognized by a fellow Mason. It was, by Union officer Hiram Bingham, who protected him, and got him to a Union field hospital. In an instant the Us/Them of Union/Confederate faded before Mason/non-Mason.
> - The WWI Christmas Truce, where opposing trench soldiers spent the day singing, praying, and partying together, playing soccer, and exchanging gifts
>
> We all have multiple dichotomies in our heads, and ones that seem inevitable and crucial can, under the right circumstances, evaporate in an instant.
>
> So how can we make these dichotomies evaporate? Some thoughts:
> - Approaching the implicit: One approach is a powerful cognitive tool -- *perspective taking*. Pretend you’re a Them and explain your grievances. How would you feel? Would your feet hurt after walking a mile in their shoes?
> - *Flatten hierarchies:* Steep ones sharpen Us/Them differences, as those on top justify their status by denigrating the have-nots, while the latter view the ruling class as low warmth/high competence.
>
> If we accept that there will always be sides, it’s challenging to always be on the side of angels. Distrust essentialism. Remember that supposed rationality is often just rationalization, playing catch-up with subterranean forces we never suspect. Focus on shared goals. Practice perspective taking. Individuate, individuate, individuate. And recall how often, historically, the truly malignant Thems hid themselves while making third parties the fall guy.

this article feels like it hints at the specific scientific backing of much of what the vtaiwan process brings out. i also feel that it suggests the importance of the *flat hierarchies of the process itself* (trust in the mediator Thems), which is *a truly novel part of vtaiwan, as opposed to traditional government-run consultation processes*

and finally, again (like I mentioned in reference to the Malcolm Gladwell podcast I posted yesterday) imho it *suggests a more prominent role of individuation* -- of perhaps taking consensus statements, and using them as a scaffold to amplify specific personal stories within the process :slightly_smiling_face:

> Humans universally make Us/Them dichotomies along lines of race, ethnicity, gender, language group, religion, age, socioeconomic status, and so on... We do so with remarkable speed and neurobiological efficiency.
> ...
> But crucially, there is room for optimism. Much of that is grounded in something definedly human, which is that we all carry multiple Us/Them divisions in our heads. A Them in one case can be an Us in another, and it can only take an instant for that identity to flip.
> ...
> Important work by Susan Fiske of Princeton University explores the taxonomies of Thems we carry in our heads. She finds that *we tend to categorize Thems along two axes: “warmth”* (is the individual or group a friend or foe, benevolent or malevolent?) and *“competence”* (how effectively can the individual or group carry out their intentions?).
>
> The axes are independent... These two axes produce a matrix with four corners. We rate ourselves as high in both warmth and competence (H/H), naturally.
> ...
> Low warmth/high competence (L/H) is how people in the developing world tend to view the Europeans who colonized them... It’s the hostile stereotype ... of the rich by the poor most everywhere -- they’re cold, greedy, clannish but, dang, go to one who is a doctor if you’re seriously sick.

> *Each extreme tends to evoke consistent feelings. For H/H (i.e., Us), there’s pride. L/H—envy and resentment. H/L—pity. L/L—disgust.*
> ...
> What fascinates me is *when someone’s categorization changes.* Most straightforward are shifts from high-warmth/high-competence (H/H) status:
> - H/H to H/L: A parent declining into dementia, evoking poignant protectiveness.
> ...
> Most interesting to me is L/H to L/L, which invokes gleeful gloating, helping to explain why persecution of L/H groups usually involves degrading and humiliating them to L/L status.
> ...
> We also recognize that other individuals belong to multiple categories, and *we shift which category we consider most relevant.*
> ...
> Important research by Mary Wheeler along with Fiske showed how categorization is shifted, studying *other-race*/amygdala activation. ...a vegetable was displayed before each face; subjects judged whether the person liked that vegetable. And the amygdala didn’t respond to other-race faces.
>
> Why? You look at the Them, thinking about what food she’d like. You picture her shopping, or ordering a meal in a restaurant. Best case scenario, you decide you and she share some vegetable preference—a smidgen of Us-ness. Worst case, you decide you two differ, a relatively benign Them—history is not stained with blood spilled by animosities between partisans for broccoli versus cauliflower. Most importantly, as you imagine her sitting at dinner, enjoying that food, *you are thinking of her as an individual, the surest way to weaken automatic categorization of someone as a Them.*
> ...
> *Rapid recategorizations* can occur in the most brutal, unlikely, and intensely poignant circumstances:
> - In the Battle of Gettysburg, Confederate general Lewis Armistead was mortally wounded. As he lay on the battlefield, he gave a secret Masonic sign, hoping it would be recognized by a fellow Mason. It was, by Union officer Hiram Bingham, who protected him, and got him to a Union field hospital. In an instant the Us/Them of Union/Confederate faded before Mason/non-Mason.
> - The WWI Christmas Truce, where opposing trench soldiers spent the day singing, praying, and partying together, playing soccer, and exchanging gifts
>
> We all have multiple dichotomies in our heads, and ones that seem inevitable and crucial can, under the right circumstances, evaporate in an instant.
>
> So how can we make these dichotomies evaporate? Some thoughts:
> - Approaching the implicit: One approach is a powerful cognitive tool -- *perspective taking*. Pretend you’re a Them and explain your grievances. How would you feel? Would your feet hurt after walking a mile in their shoes?
> - *Flatten hierarchies:* Steep ones sharpen Us/Them differences, as those on top justify their status by denigrating the have-nots, while the latter view the ruling class as low warmth/high competence.
>
> If we accept that there will always be sides, it’s challenging to always be on the side of angels. Distrust essentialism. Remember that supposed rationality is often just rationalization, playing catch-up with subterranean forces we never suspect. Focus on shared goals. Practice perspective taking. Individuate, individuate, individuate. And recall how often, historically, the truly malignant Thems hid themselves while making third parties the fall guy.

this article feels like it hints at the specific scientific backing of much of what the vtaiwan process brings out. i also feel that it suggests the importance of the *flat hierarchies of the process itself* (trust in the mediator Thems), which is *a truly novel part of vtaiwan, as opposed to traditional government-run consultation processes*

and finally, again (like I mentioned in reference to the Malcolm Gladwell podcast I posted yesterday) imho it *suggests a more prominent role of individuation* -- of perhaps taking consensus statements, and using them as a scaffold to amplify specific personal stories within the process :slightly_smiling_face:

>New York City has launched NYCx, a program that invites both local and global entrepreneurs, start up companies, and community organizations to use New York City as a testing ground for ideas and technologies that can positively impact all New Yorkers.

>NYCx’s Challenge Program seeks creative technology solutions to address several targeted problems in urban life that include 1) how best to affordably deploy high-speed wireless connectivity, 2) ways to reduce litter and increase recycling rates, and 3) how best to support safe nighttime use of public spaces and increase use of neighborhood corridors.

Audrey Tang In Taiwan, we have long been committed to assisting diplomatic allies in building up their basic infrastructure, including in areas such as information and communications technology (ICT). Some of these allies are least developed countries, small island developing states, and landlocked developing countries. In our own society, the technological advancements of Taiwan’s academia and industries have brought about a mature e-government. Applications such as online cash flow and di...

Should be very easy to do with the way their embeds work. About <http://pol.is|pol.is>: <https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/creating-a-culture-of-continuous-feedback-1b97523ad11e#.a2hnvuow7> <http://pol.is|pol.is> is designed from...